Sign up ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In the Kechris book on (Classical) Descriptive Set Theory there is a claim that a separable metrisable space is zero dimensional if and only if every closed set is a cts retract of the whole space (Theorem 7.3).

Zero dimensional is equivalent to: there is a basis of clopen sets.

One direction ($\Rightarrow$) is easy: one can easily place the space into an homeomorphism with a subset of cantor space. I would like to know how to prove the other direction. The reference in Kechris is to Kuratowski: but I looked at this old topology handbook and it only contained the ($\Rightarrow$) direction (in fact it did not even claim the reverse direction).

Is Kechris’ claim correct? If so, and you know the proof or a sketch thereof, it would be great if you could post it.

I tried setting up a contradiction; let $x\in U$ with $U$ open so that there is no clopen $A$ with $x\in A\subseteq U$. Then letting $x\in V_{n}\subseteq U$ be a neighbourhood basis for $x$ with $(V_{n})_{n}$ monotone decreasing, I took the inverse limit of a sequence of (compatible) retracts:

$X\setminus V_{0}\twoheadleftarrow X\setminus V_{1}\twoheadleftarrow\ldots \breve{X}$

where for each $n$, there is no clopen set $A$, such that $X\setminus V_{n}\subseteq A\not\ni x$. But didn't get far with this$\ldots$

share|cite|improve this question
Hint: Effectively, every zero-dimensional seperable metrizable space is homeomorphic to the cantor middle thirds set on [0,1]. This should be a good starting point for intuition to take over. – Michael Blackmon Jan 20 '11 at 7:40
Problem 1. If $Y$ is a closed subset of a compact metric space $X$ and the nearest point mapping from $X$ to $Y$ is single valued, then it is continuous. Problem 2. Put an equivalent metric on the Cantor set $X=\{0,1\}^N$ so that the hypothesis of (1) is satisfied for every closed subset $Y$ of $X$. Problem 3. Show that Michael and I gave essentially the same hint. – Bill Johnson Jan 20 '11 at 9:15
@Michael: no, only if there are no isolated points and it is compact. Otherwise Q, R\Q, a convergent sequence etc. are counterexamples. – Henno Brandsma Jan 21 '11 at 8:06
@Brandsma: wasn't meant to a perfect answer, just a fact that came off the top of my head and seemed helpful. That being said, you are correct, I should have added the assumption of compactness, and not having isolated points. – Michael Blackmon Feb 2 '11 at 23:48

1 Answer 1

The implication $\Leftarrow$ is nigh on trivial: given $x$ and $U$ take a retraction $r$ of $X$ onto $\lbrace x\rbrace\cup(X\setminus U)$ and then let $A=r^\gets\bigl[\lbrace x\rbrace\bigr]$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.